JAGMOHAN SINGH DHILLON ETC.ETC. versus SATWANT SINGH & ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [2021] 2 S.C.R. 1181 · Decided: 26-03-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1181
JAGMOHAN SINGH DHILLON ETC.ETC.
v.
SATWANT SINGH & ORS. ETC. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4616-4618 of 2010)
MARCH 26, 2021
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, S. ABDUL NAZEER AND
HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Army service: Ex-servicemen – Appellant appointed against
advertisement issued on 01.05.1982 by appointment order dated
18.03.1986 – Whether the appellant for determination of his
seniority was entitled for the benefit of r.4 of 1972 Rules – Held: r.4
of 1972 Rules provides that period of military service rendered by a
candidate appointed against reserved vacancy shall count towards
fixation of pay and seniority, which provision was no longer
continued in r.4 of 1982 Rules – Appellant was appointed after the
enforcement of 1982 Rules – Therefore, he is not entitled to claim
benefit of military service for purpose of seniority since the benefit
of r.4(1) of 1972 Rules was not continued in 1982 Rules – His
seniority was to be governed by statutory rules applicable after the
enforcement of 1982 Rules – Demobilized Indian Armed Forces
Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in the Punjab Civil Service)
Executive Branch Rules, 1972 – r.4 – Punjab Recruitment of
Ex-servicemen Rules, 1982.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The 1972 Rules were superseded by another
Rules framed under Proviso to Article 309 read with Article 234
and 318 of the Constitution of India, namely, Punjab (Recruitment
of Ex-servicemen) Rules, 1982. Rule 4 of 1972 Rules provided
that period of military service rendered by a candidate appointed
against reserved vacancy shall count towards fixation of pay and
seniority, which provision was no longer continued in Rule 4 of
1982 Rules, However, the provision for reservation of vacancies
was maintained to the extent of fifteen percent of the vacancies.
[Paras 10, 11][1186-G; 1187-E-F]
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 1181
1181
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1182
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
2. The question of determination of seniority comes only
after a person enters into service and becomes a member of
service. Under 1972 Rules, it cannot be held that the fact that
vacancies were in existent prior to enforcement of 1982 Rules,
and appointment of a person subsequent to enforcement of 1982
Rules, he shall be entitled to the benefit of Rule 4, i.e., to add his
military services for the purposes of his seniority, especially when
the benefit which was available for the purposes of seniority under
Rule 4 of 1972 Rules is no longer continued under 1982 Rules.
[Para 15][11859-C-D]
3. 1982 Rules specifically repealed the 1972 Rules, thus,
the Rule 4 of 1972 Rules which provided for benefit of seniority
of Army service was no longer entitled to be counted for seniority
for personnel who was appointed after enforcement of 1982 Rules.
Under 1982 Rules, there is no indication that the benefit which
was available to Armed Forces Personnel under Rule 4 of 1972
Rules are continued or any right has been accrued on the
appellant under 1972 Rules which he is entitled to avail regarding
seniority. [Paras 16, 19][1189-E; 1190-E-F]
R.K. Barwal and others v. State of Himachal Pradesh
and others, (2017) 16 SCC 803: [2017] 9 SCR 671 –
referred to
4. The Division Bench has rightly taken the view that saving
clause under Rule 9(3) does not extend any benefit to the
appellant since there is nothing to show that any right of weightage
for army services for seniority has already accrued before he joined
services. Saving clause in Rule 9(3) cannot be availed by the
appellant. [Para 21][1191-A-B]
5. The appellant was not entitled to claim benefit of military
service for purpose of seniority for appointment to Punjab Civil
Service(Executive Branch) since the benefit of Rule 4(1) of 1972
Rules was not continued in 1982 Rules. His seniority was to be
governed by statutory rules applicable after the enforcement of
1982 Rules. [Para 23][1191-D]
Ishwar Singh and others v. State of Punjab in Writ
Petition No. 3236 of 1995 – held inapplicable
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1183
State of Punjab and other v. Dr. Balbir Bharadwaj,
LPA No.168 of 2004, decided on 29.01.2007
– distinguished
Case Law Reference
[2017] 9 SCR 671
referred to
Para 17
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4616-
4618 of 2010
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.07.2009 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in LPA No. 19 of 2008 & LPA
No. 20 of  2008 and LPA No. 213 of 2007.
Gurminder Singh, Sr. Adv., Guroor Sandhu, Ayush Choudhary,
Devanshu Yadav, D. Mahesh Babu, Advs. for the Appellants.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.